Identifying Population-Level and Within-Hospital Disparities in Surgical Care.

INTRODUCTION: The lack of consensus on equity measurement and its incorporation into quality-assessment programs at the hospital and system levels may be a barrier to addressing disparities in surgical care. This study aimed to identify population-level and within-hospital differences in the quality of surgical care provision. METHODS: The analysis included 657 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program participating hospitals with over 4 million patients (2014-2018). Multi-level random slope, random intercept modeling was used to examine for population-level and in-hospital disparities. Disparities in surgical care by Area Deprivation Index (ADI), race, and ethnicity were analyzed for five measures: all-case inpatient mortality, all-case urgent readmission, all-case postoperative surgical site infection, colectomy mortality, and spine surgery complications. RESULTS: Population-level disparities were identified across all measures by ADI, two measures for Black race (all-case readmissions and spine surgery complications), and none for Hispanic ethnicity. Disparities remained significant in the adjusted models. Prior to risk-adjustment, in all measures examined, within-hospital disparities were detected in: 25.8-99.8% of hospitals for ADI, 0-6.1% of hospitals for Black race, and 0-0.8% of hospitals for Hispanic ethnicity. Following risk-adjustment, in all measures examined, fewer than 1.1% of hospitals demonstrated disparities by ADI, race, or ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Following risk adjustment, very few hospitals demonstrated significant disparities in care. Disparities were more frequently detected by ADI than by race and ethnicity. The lack of substantial in-hospital disparities may be due to the use of postoperative metrics, small sample sizes, the risk adjustment methodology, and healthcare segregation. Further work should examine surgical access and healthcare segregation.

Development and preliminary assessment of a machine learning model to predict myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest after major operations.

INTRODUCTION: Accurate prediction of complications often informs shared decision-making. Derived over 10 years ago to enhance prediction of intra/post-operative myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest (MI/CA), the Gupta score has been criticized for unreliable calibration and inclusion of a wide spectrum of unrelated operations. In the present study, we developed a novel machine learning (ML) model to estimate perioperative risk of MI/CA and compared it to the Gupta score. METHODS: Patients undergoing major operations were identified from the 2016-2020 ACS-NSQIP. The Gupta score was calculated for each patient, and a novel ML model was developed to predict MI/CA using ACS NSQIP-provided data fields as covariates. Discrimination (C-statistic) and calibration (Brier score) of the ML model were compared to the existing Gupta score within the entire cohort and across operative subgroups. RESULTS: Of 2,473,487 patients included for analysis, 25,177 (1.0%) experienced MI/CA (55.2% MI, 39.1% CA, 5.6% MI and CA). The ML model, which was fit using a randomly selected training cohort, exhibited higher discrimination within the testing dataset compared to the Gupta score (C-statistic 0.84 vs 0.80, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the ML model had significantly better calibration in the entire cohort (Brier score 0.0097 vs 0.0100). Model performance was markedly improved among patients undergoing thoracic, aortic, peripheral vascular and foregut surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The present ML model outperformed the Gupta score in the prognostication of MI/CA across a heterogenous range of operations. Given the growing integration of ML into healthcare, such models may be readily incorporated into clinical practice and guide benchmarking efforts.

Identifying a common data dictionary across colorectal cancer outcome registries: A mapping exercise to identify opportunities for data dictionary harmonisation.

IMPORTANCE: The development of colorectal cancer outcome registries internationally has been organic, with differing datasets, data definitions and infrastructure across registries which has limited data pooling and international comparison. Currently there is no comprehensive data dictionary identified as a standard. This study is part of an international collaboration that aims to identify areas of data capture and usage which may be optimised to improve understanding of colorectal cancer outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare and identify commonalities and areas of difference across major colorectal cancer registries. We sought to establish datasets comprising of mutually collected common fields, and a combined comprehensive dataset of all collected fields across major registries to aid in establishing a future colorectal cancer registry database standard. DESIGN AND METHODS: This mixed qualitative and quantitative study compared data dictionaries from three major colorectal cancer outcome registries: Bowel Cancer Outcomes Registry (BCOR) (Australia and New Zealand), National Bowel Cancer Audit (NBOCA) (United Kingdom) and Dutch ColoRectal Audit (DCRA) (Netherlands). Registries were compared and analysed thematically, and a common dataset and combined comprehensive dataset were developed. These generated datasets were compared to data dictionaries from Sweden (SCRCR), Denmark (DCCG), Argentina (BNCCR-A) and the USA (NAACCR and ACS NSQIP). Fields were assessed against prominent quality indicator metrics from the literature and current case-use. RESULTS: We developed a combined comprehensive dataset of 225 fields under seven domains: demographic, pre-operative, operative, post-operative, pathology, neoadjuvant therapy, adjuvant therapy, and follow up/recurrence. A common dataset was developed comprising 38 overlapping fields, showing a low degree of mutually collected data, especially in preoperative, post operative and adjuvant therapy domains. The BNCCR-A, SCRCR and DCCG databases all contained a high percentage of common dataset fields. Fields were poorly comparable when viewed form current quality indicator metrics. CONCLUSION: This study mapped data dictionaries of prominent colorectal cancer registries and highlighted areas of commonality and difference The developed common field dataset provides a foundation for registries to benchmark themselves and work towards harmonisation of data dictionaries. This has the potential to enable meaningful large-scale international outcomes research.

Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program: Bariatric Surgical Risk/Benefit Calculator: 1-year comorbidity remission.

BACKGROUND: Clinical calculators can provide patient-personalized estimates of treatment risks and health outcomes. The American College of Surgeons Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) set out to create a publicly available tool to assess both short-term postoperative risk and long-term benefits for prospective adult patients eligible for 1 of 4 primary bariatric procedures. The calculator is comprised of multiple prediction elements: (1) 30-day postoperative risk, (2) 1-year body mass index projections, and (3) 1-year comorbidity remission. OBJECTIVES: To assess the performance of the 1-year comorbidity remission prediction feature of the calculator. SETTING: Not-for-profit organization clinical data registry. METHODS: MBSAQIP data across 4.5 years from 240,227 total patients indicating at least 1 comorbidity of interest present preoperatively and who had a 1-year follow-up record documenting their comorbidity status were included. Six models were constructed, stratified by the presence of the respective preoperative comorbidity: hypertension, hyperlipidemia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, sleep apnea, non-insulin-dependent diabetes, and insulin-dependent diabetes. A multinomial logistic regression model was used to predict 1-year remission (total, partial, or no remission) of insulin-dependent diabetes. All other outcomes were binary (yes or no at 1 yr), and ordinary logistic regression models were used. RESULTS: All models showed adequate discrimination (C statistics ranging from .58 to .68). Plots of observed versus predicted remission (%) showed excellent calibration across all models. CONCLUSION: All remission models were well calibrated with sufficient discrimination. The MBSAQIP Bariatric Surgical Risk/Benefit Calculator is a publicly available tool intended for integration into clinical practice to enhance patient-clinician discussions and informed consent.

First report of outcomes from the patient-reported outcome measures program in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Improvement Program.

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) is one of the most important outcomes to metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) patients but was not measured by the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP). A patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) program pilot started in 2016 with MBSAQIP implementation in 2019. OBJECTIVES: To measure how MBS impacts patient HRQoL 1 and 2 years after primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (bypass) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (sleeve). SETTING: The 82 centers in the United States participating in the MBSAQIP PROMs program. METHODS: Preoperative HRQoL scores and satisfaction were compared with postoperative scores 1 and 2 years after surgery with univariate comparisons and adjusted regression models. RESULTS: There were 13,901 PROMs responses from 11,146 patients. Patient satisfaction with their MBS decision was 97%. On average, patients had significant improvement in Obesity-related Problem (OP) scores (65.8 preoperatively, 23.0 at 1 yr, and 26.3 at 2 yr; P <.05), Obesity and Weight-Loss Quality-of-Life (OWLQOL) scores (36.7 preoperatively, 77.2 at 1 yr, and 74.6 at 2 yr; P < .05), their physical health (39.2 preoperatively versus 51.7 at 1 yr and 50.0 at 2 yr), and mental health (45.6 preoperatively versus 53.3 at 1 yr and 51.4 at 2 yr). Compared with bypass patients, sleeve patients had significantly lower odds of having low OP scores postoperatively (odds ratio [95% CI) ] .67 [.53, .83]) and lower odds of high OWLQOL (.61 [.48, .77]) at 1 year. CONCLUSION: All patients regardless of procedure on average report significant improvement in their scores for OP, OWLQOL, and physical and mental health after MBS. At 1 and 2 years, bypass patients reported greater improvement in their obesity-related PROMs than sleeve patients.

The Accuracy of the NSQIP Universal Surgical Risk Calculator Compared to Operation-Specific Calculators.

Objective: To compare the performance of the ACS NSQIP "universal" risk calculator (N-RC) to operation-specific RCs. Background: Resources have been directed toward building operation-specific RCs because of an implicit belief that they would provide more accurate risk estimates than the N-RC. However, operation-specific calculators may not provide sufficient improvements in accuracy to justify the costs in development, maintenance, and access. Methods: For the N-RC, a cohort of 5,020,713 NSQIP patient records were randomly divided into 80% for machine learning algorithm training and 20% for validation. Operation-specific risk calculators (OS-RC) and OS-RCs with operation-specific predictors (OSP-RC) were independently developed for each of 6 operative groups (colectomy, whipple pancreatectomy, thyroidectomy, abdominal aortic aneurysm (open), hysterectomy/myomectomy, and total knee arthroplasty) and 14 outcomes using the same 80%/20% rule applied to the appropriate subsets of the 5M records. Predictive accuracy was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), and Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) P values, for 13 binary outcomes, and mean squared error for the length of stay outcome. Results: The N-RC was found to have greater AUROC (P = 0.002) and greater AUPRC (P < 0.001) compared to the OS-RC. No other statistically significant differences in accuracy, across the 3 risk calculator types, were found. There was an inverse relationship between the operation group sample size and magnitude of the difference in AUROC (r = -0.278; P = 0.014) and in AUPRC (r = -0.425; P < 0.001) between N-RC and OS-RC. The smaller the sample size, the greater the superiority of the N-RC. Conclusions: While operation-specific RCs might be assumed to have advantages over a universal RC, their reliance on smaller datasets may reduce their ability to accurately estimate predictor effects. In the present study, this tradeoff between operation specificity and accuracy, in estimating the effects of predictor variables, favors the N-R, though the clinical impact is likely to be negligible.

Development and Validation of a Novel Literature-Based Method to Identify Disparity-Sensitive Surgical Quality Metrics.

BACKGROUND: Disparity in surgical care impedes the delivery of uniformly high-quality care. Metrics that quantify disparity in care can help identify areas for needed intervention. A literature-based Disparity-Sensitive Score (DSS) system for surgical care was adapted by the Metrics for Equitable Access and Care in Surgery (MEASUR) group. The alignment between the MEASUR DSS and Delphi ratings of an expert advisory panel (EAP) regarding the disparity sensitivity of surgical quality metrics was assessed. STUDY DESIGN: Using DSS criteria MEASUR co-investigators scored 534 surgical metrics which were subsequently rated by the EAP. All scores were converted to a 9-point scale. Agreement between the new measurement technique (ie DSS) and an established subjective technique (ie importance and validity ratings) were assessed using the Bland-Altman method, adjusting for the linear relationship between the paired difference and the paired average. The limit of agreement (LOA) was set at 1.96 SD (95%). RESULTS: The percentage of DSS scores inside the LOA was 96.8% (LOA, 0.02 points) for the importance rating and 94.6% (LOA, 1.5 points) for the validity rating. In comparison, 94.4% of the 2 subjective EAP ratings were inside the LOA (0.7 points). CONCLUSIONS: Applying the MEASUR DSS criteria using available literature allowed for identification of disparity-sensitive surgical metrics. The results suggest that this literature-based method of selecting quality metrics may be comparable to more complex consensus-based Delphi methods. In fields with robust literature, literature-based composite scores may be used to select quality metrics rather than assembling consensus panels.

Quality and Outcome Assessment for Surgery.

ABSTRACT: This forum summarizes the proceedings of the joint European Surgical Association (ESA)/American Surgical Association (ASA) symposium on Quality and Outcome Assessment for Surgery that took place in Bordeaux, France, as part of the celebrations of the 30th anniversary of the ESA. Three presentations focused on a) the main messages from the Outcome4Medicine Consensus Conference, which took place in Zurich, Switzerland, in June 2022, b) the patient perspective, and c) benchmarking were hold by ESA members and discussed by ASA members in a symposium attended by members of both associations.

Association Between Biliary Pathogens, Surgical Site Infection, and Pancreatic Fistula: Results of a Randomized Trial of Perioperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Patients Undergoing Pancreatoduodenectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To establish the association between bactibilia and postoperative complications when stratified by perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis. BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy experience high rates of surgical site infection (SSI) and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF). Contaminated bile is known to be associated with SSI, but the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in mitigation of infectious risks is ill-defined. METHODS: Intraoperative bile cultures (IOBCs) were collected as an adjunct to a randomized phase 3 clinical trial comparing piperacillin-tazobactam with cefoxitin as perioperative prophylaxis in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy. After compilation of IOBC data, associations between culture results, SSI, and CR-POPF were assessed using logistic regression stratified by the presence of a preoperative biliary stent. RESULTS: Of 778 participants in the clinical trial, IOBC were available for 247 participants. Overall, 68 (27.5%) grew no organisms, 37 (15.0%) grew 1 organism, and 142 (57.5%) were polymicrobial. Organisms resistant to cefoxitin but not piperacillin-tazobactam were present in 95 patients (45.2%). The presence of cefoxitin-resistant organisms, 92.6% of which contained either Enterobacter spp. or Enterococcus spp., was associated with the development of SSI in participants treated with cefoxitin [53.5% vs 25.0%; odds ratio (OR)=3.44, 95% CI: 1.50-7.91; P =0.004] but not those treated with piperacillin-tazobactam (13.5% vs 27.0%; OR=0.42, 95% CI: 0.14-1.29; P =0.128). Similarly, cefoxitin-resistant organisms were associated with CR-POPF in participants treated with cefoxitin (24.1% vs 5.8%; OR=3.45, 95% CI: 1.22-9.74; P =0.017) but not those treated with piperacillin-tazobactam (5.4% vs 4.8%; OR=0.92, 95% CI: 0.30-2.80; P =0.888). CONCLUSIONS: Previously observed reductions in SSI and CR-POPF in patients that received piperacillin-tazobactam antibiotic prophylaxis are potentially mediated by biliary pathogens that are cefoxitin resistant, specifically Enterobacter spp. and Enterococcus spp.

History and Role of Quality Accreditation.

Accreditation has played a major role in the evolution of health care quality as well as the structure and organization of American medicine. In its earliest iterations, accreditation aimed to set a minimum standard of care, and now more prominently sets standards for high quality, optimal patient care. There are several institutions that provide accreditations that are relevant to colorectal surgery including the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Commission on Cancer, National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Designation, National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer, and the ACS Geriatrics Verification Program. While each program has unique criteria, the aim of accreditation is to assure high-quality evidenced-based care. In addition to these benchmarks, these programs provide avenues for collaboration and research between centers and programs.

Multisite Implementation of an American College of Surgeons Geriatric Surgery Quality Improvement Initiative.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons (ACS) Coalition for Quality in Geriatric Surgery (CQGS) identified standards of surgical care for the growing, vulnerable population of aging adults in the US. The aims of this study were to determine implementation feasibility for 30 selected standards, identify barriers and best practices in their implementation, and further refine these geriatric standards and verification process. STUDY DESIGN: The CQGS requested participation from hospitals involved in the ACS NSQIP Geriatric Surgery Pilot Project, previous CQGS feasibility analyses, and hospitals affiliated with a core development team member. Thirty standards were selected for implementation. After implementation, site visits were conducted, and postvisit surveys were distributed. RESULTS: Eight hospitals were chosen to participate. Program management (55%), immediate preoperative and intraoperative clinical care (62.5%), and postoperative clinical care (58%) had the highest mean percentage of "fully compliant" standards. Goals and decision-making (30%), preoperative optimization (28%), and transitions of care (12.5%) had the lowest mean percentage of fully compliant standards. Best practices and barriers to implementation were identified across 13 of the 30 standards. More than 80% of the institutions reported that participation changed the surgical care provided for older adults. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the first national implementation assessment undertaken by the ACS for one of its quality programs. The CQGS pilot testing was able to demonstrate implementation feasibility for 30 standards, identify challenges and best practices, and further inform dissemination of the ACS Geriatric Surgery Verification Program.

Evolution of the American College of Surgeons Children's Surgery Verification Program: Implications for optimizing multidisciplinary surgical care of the pediatric patient.

The Children's Surgery Verification Program of the American College of Surgeons began in 2016 based on the standards created by the Task Force for Children's Surgery. This program seeks to improve the surgical care of children by assuring the appropriate resources and robust performance improvement programs at participating centers. Three levels of centers with defined scopes of practice and matching resources are defined. Since its inception more than 50 center have been verified. A specialty hospital program was launched in 2019. The standards for all hospitals were revised in 2021 based on lessons learned. In this article the leaders of the program discuss the development, areas of greatest impact and future directions of the program.

The past, present and future of ACS NSQIP-Pediatric: Evolution from a quality registry to a comparative quality performance platform.

Quality and process improvement (QI/PI) in children's surgical care require reliable data across the care continuum. Since 2012, the American College of Surgeons' (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program-Pediatric (NSQIP-Pediatric) has supported QI/PI by providing participating hospitals with risk-adjusted, comparative data regarding postoperative outcomes for multiple surgical specialties. To advance this goal over the past decade, iterative changes have been introduced to case inclusion and data collection, analysis and reporting. New datasets for specific procedures, such as appendectomy, spinal fusion for scoliosis, vesicoureteral reflux procedures, and tracheostomy in children less than 2 years old, have incorporated additional risk factors and outcomes to enhance the clinical relevance of data, and resource utilization to consider healthcare value. Recently, process measures for urgent surgical diagnoses and surgical antibiotic prophylaxis variables have been developed to promote timely and appropriate care. While a mature program, NSQIP-Pediatric remains dynamic and responsive to meet the needs of the surgical community. Future directions include introduction of variables and analyses to address patient-centered care and healthcare equity.

Procedure-Level Misutilization of Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Pediatric Surgery: Implications for Improved Stewardship and More Effective Infection Prevention.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to quantify prophylaxis misutilization to identify high-priority procedures for improved stewardship and SSI prevention. METHODS: This was a multicenter analysis including 90 hospitals participating in the NSQIP-Pediatric Antibiotic Prophylaxis Collaborative from 6/2019 to 6/2020. Prophylaxis data were collected from all hospitals and misutilization measures were developed from consensus guidelines. Overutilization included use of overly broad-spectrum agents, continuation of prophylaxis >24 h after incision closure, and use in clean procedures without implants. Underutilization included omission (clean-contaminated cases), use of inappropriately narrow-spectrum agents, and administration post-incision. Procedure-level misutilization burden was estimated by multiplying NSQIP-derived misutilization rates by case volume data obtained from the Pediatric Health Information System database. RESULTS: 9861 patients were included. Overutilization was most commonly associated with overly broad-spectrum agents (14.0%), unindicated utilization (12.6%), and prolonged duration (8.4%). Procedure groups with the greatest overutilization burden included small bowel (27.2%), cholecystectomy (24.4%), and colorectal (10.7%). Underutilization was most commonly associated with post-incision administration (6.2%), inappropriate omission (4.4%), and overly narrow-spectrum agents (4.1%). Procedure groups with the greatest underutilization burden included colorectal (31.2%), gastrostomy (19.2%), and small bowel (11.1%). CONCLUSION: A relatively small number of procedures account for a disproportionate burden of antibiotic misutilization in pediatric surgery. TYPE OF STUDY: Retrospective Cohort. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Truth of Colorectal Enhanced Recovery Programs: Process Measure Compliance in 151 Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Commonly cited studies have reported substantial improvements (defined as >20%) in process measure compliance after implementation of colorectal enhanced recovery programs (ERPs). However, hospitals have anecdotally reported difficulties in achieving similar improvement gains. This study evaluates improvement uniformity among 151 hospitals exposed to an 18-month implementation protocol for 6 colorectal ERP process measures (oral antibiotics, mechanical bowel preparation, multimodal pain control, early mobilization, early liquid intake, and early solid intake). STUDY DESIGN: One hundred fifty-one hospitals implemented a colorectal ERP with pathway, educational and supporting materials, and data capture protocols; 906 opportunities existed for process compliance improvement across the cohort (151 hospitals × 6 process measures). However, 240 opportunities were excluded due to high starting compliance rates (ie compliance >80%) and 3 opportunities were excluded because compliance rates were recorded for fewer than 2 cases. Thus, 663 opportunities for improvement across 151 hospitals were studied. RESULTS: Of 663 opportunities, minimal improvement (0% to 20% increase in compliance) occurred in 52% of opportunities, substantial improvement (>20% increase in compliance) in 20%, and worsening compliance occurred in 28%. Of the 6 processes, multimodal pain control and use of oral antibiotics improved the most. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to published ERP literature, the majority of study hospitals had difficulty improving process compliance with 80% of the opportunities not achieving substantial improvement. This discordance between ERP implementation success rates reported in the literature and what is observed in a large sample could reflect differences in hospitals' culture or characteristics, or a publication bias. Attention needs to be directed toward improving ERP adoption across the spectrum of hospital types.

The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program Bariatric Surgical Risk/Benefit Calculator: 1-year weight.

BACKGROUND: Data-driven tools can be designed to provide patient-personalized estimates of health outcomes. Clinical calculators are commonly built to assess risk, but potential benefits of treatment should be equally considered. The American College of Surgeons Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) sought to create a risk and benefit calculator for adult patients considering primary metabolic and bariatric surgery with multiple prediction features: (1) 30-day risk, (2) 1-year body mass index (BMI) projections, and (3) 1-year co-morbidity remission. OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of the 1-year BMI projections feature of this tool. SETTING: Not-for-profit organization, clinical data registry. METHODS: MBSAQIP data from 596,024 cases across 4.5 years from 882 centers with ∼2.5 million records through 18 months postoperatively were included. A generalized estimating equation model was used to estimate BMI over time for 4 primary procedures: laparoscopic adjustable gastric band, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, and biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch. RESULTS: The mean absolute error (MAE) in BMI predictions through postoperative month 12 was 1.68 units; overall correlation of actual and predicted BMI was .94. MAE of postoperative BMI estimates (1-12 mo) was lowest for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (1.64) and highest for biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (1.99). BMI predictions at 12 months showed MAE = 2.99 units. CONCLUSIONS: Predicted BMI closely aligned with actual BMI values across the 12-month postoperative period. The MBSAQIP Bariatric Surgical Risk/Benefit Calculator is publicly available with the intent to facilitate patient-clinician communication and guide surgical decision making. This tool can aid in evaluating postoperative risk as well as benefits and long-term expectations.

Evaluating agreement between clinic- and patient-reported outcomes for weight and co-morbidities at 1 year after bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: Development of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to include traditionally clinic-reported data has the potential to decrease the data-collection burden for patients and clinicians and increase follow-up rates. However, replacing clinic report by patient report requires that the data reasonably agree. OBJECTIVE: To assess agreement between PROs and clinical registry data at 1 year after bariatric surgery. SETTING: Not-for-profit organization, bariatric surgery data registry, PROs platform. METHODS: Patient- and clinic-reported 1-year postoperative weight and co-morbidities were compared for matched PROs and registry records. The co-morbidities evaluated were diabetes, sleep apnea, hypertension, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and hyperlipidemia. Weight difference in pounds and nominal groupings (binary, 4-level) for co-morbidities were assessed for agreement between data sources using descriptive statistics, Bland-Altman plots, multiple regression, and kappa coefficients. Sensitivity analyses and follow-up by response method were examined. RESULTS: Among 1130 patients with both 1-year PROs and registry weights, 95% of patient-reported weights were within 13 lb of the registry-recorded weight, and patients underreported their weight by ∼2 lb, on average. Percent agreement and kappa coefficients were highest for diabetes (n = 999; binary: 94%, κ = .72; 4-level: 86%, κ = .71) and lowest for gastroesophageal reflux disease (n = 1032; binary: 75%, κ = .40; 4-level: 57%, κ = .35). Of patients eligible for both PROs and registry 1-year follow-up, 21% had PROs only. CONCLUSIONS: One-year patient- and clinic-reported weights and disease status for patients with diabetes and hypertension showed high agreement. The degree of bias from patient report was low. Patient report is a viable alternative to clinic report for certain objective measurements and may increase follow-up.

Disparity-Sensitive Measures in Surgical Care: A Delphi Panel Consensus.

BACKGROUND: In the US, disparities in surgical care impede the delivery of uniformly high-quality care to all patients. There is a lack of disparity-sensitive measures related to surgical care. The American College of Surgeons Metrics for Equitable Access and Care in Surgery group, through research and expert consensus, aimed to identify disparity-sensitive measures in surgical care. STUDY DESIGN: An environmental scan, systematic literature review, and subspecialty society surveys were conducted to identify potential disparity-sensitive surgical measures. A modified Delphi process was conducted where panelists rated measures on both importance and validity. In addition, a novel literature-based disparity-sensitive scoring process was used. RESULTS: We identified 841 potential disparity-sensitive surgical measures. From these, our Delphi and literature-based approaches yielded a consensus list of 125 candidate disparity-sensitive measures. These measures were rated as both valid and important and were supported by the existing literature. CONCLUSION: There are profound disparities in surgical care within the US healthcare system. A multidisciplinary Delphi panel identified 125 potential disparity-sensitive surgical measures that could be used to track health disparities, evaluate the impact of focused interventions, and reduce healthcare inequity.

Incidence and Relative Burden of Surgical Site Infections in Children Undergoing Nonemergent Surgery: Implications for Performance Benchmarking and Prioritization of Prevention Efforts.

OBJECTIVE: To establish surgical site infection (SSI) performance benchmarks in pediatric surgery and to develop a prioritization framework for SSI prevention based on procedure-level SSI burden. BACKGROUND: Contemporary epidemiology of SSI rates and event burden in elective pediatric surgery remain poorly characterized. METHODS: Multicenter analysis using sampled SSI data from 90 hospitals participating in NSQIP-Pediatric and procedural volume data from the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database. Procedure-level incisional and organ space SSI (OSI) rates for 17 elective procedure groups were calculated from NSQIP-Pediatric data and estimates of procedure-level SSI burden were extrapolated using procedural volume data. The relative contribution of each procedure to the cumulative sum of SSI events from all procedures was used as a prioritization framework. RESULTS: A total of 11,689 nonemergent procedures were included. The highest incisional SSI rates were associated with gastrostomy closure (4.1%), small bowel procedures (4.0%), and gastrostomy (3.7%), while the highest OSI rates were associated with esophageal atresia/tracheoesophageal fistula repair (8.1%), colorectal procedures (1.8%), and small bowel procedures (1.5%). 66.1% of the cumulative incisional SSI burden from all procedures were attributable to 3 procedure groups (gastrostomy: 27.5%, small bowel: 22.9%, colorectal: 15.7%), and 72.8% of all OSI events were similarly attributable to 3 procedure groups (small bowel: 28.5%, colorectal: 26.0%, esophageal atresia/tracheoesophageal fistula repair: 18.4%). CONCLUSIONS: A small number of procedures account for a disproportionate burden of SSIs in pediatric surgery. The results of this analysis can be used as a prioritization framework for refocusing SSI prevention efforts where they are needed most.